Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Fuck Debate Politics
I was surfing the net looking for a good political forum when I found Debate Politics. I told them I was an MRA and that I was looking forward to participating there,being very polite while I was there. The next day when I logged in I found out I had been banned,no reason given. If I was rude to the other posters,especially the established ones then I can see but I wasn't. So I went searching on their site and found some groups that are favorable to these assclowns. These groups are approved by Debate Politics. Most of these groups are feminist and other left wing groups. I'll bet some feminazi piece of dried dog shit saw my screenname on the forum she is moderating and PMSed out so bad she banned me,without reason nor explanation. OTOH,I should be glad I was banned that way I'll never be compared to these putrid pieces of shit. Fuck them all.
Let's make sure Congress includes presumption of innocence in VAWA reauthorization
From SAVE Services:
What Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
The DV industry is telling Congress that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) must be reauthorized during the lame duck session. We need to make sure they hear our message that VAWA should not be reauthorized unless it respects the presumption of innocence.
Learn more: click here
Let's take action!
Call both of your Senators and your Representative at 1-202-224-3121.
You can also find your Senators' phone numbers here and your Representative's phone number here
Even if you called last time, call again today. Just say, "Don't pass the Violence Against Women Act until the presumption of innocence is restored!"
Call now. Call later. Call often.
Or call once.
Just call! teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
The statists are hoping we are not paying attention to this lame duck Congress,that they can pass anything they want. Let's tell them they are out of luck. Let's let them know that this misandrist filth will no longer tolerated but most of all let's tell them today. Call or email your Senators and Congressperson and tell them you are against eliminating presumption of innocence when it comes to VAWA cases. You can also contact Speaker of the House John Boehner,Congressional Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and get them on our side of this fight against the feminazis. Write them right away.
What Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
The DV industry is telling Congress that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) must be reauthorized during the lame duck session. We need to make sure they hear our message that VAWA should not be reauthorized unless it respects the presumption of innocence.
Learn more: click here
Let's take action!
Call both of your Senators and your Representative at 1-202-224-3121.
You can also find your Senators' phone numbers here and your Representative's phone number here
Even if you called last time, call again today. Just say, "Don't pass the Violence Against Women Act until the presumption of innocence is restored!"
Call now. Call later. Call often.
Or call once.
Just call! teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
The statists are hoping we are not paying attention to this lame duck Congress,that they can pass anything they want. Let's tell them they are out of luck. Let's let them know that this misandrist filth will no longer tolerated but most of all let's tell them today. Call or email your Senators and Congressperson and tell them you are against eliminating presumption of innocence when it comes to VAWA cases. You can also contact Speaker of the House John Boehner,Congressional Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and get them on our side of this fight against the feminazis. Write them right away.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The return of Factory
MRM: It is not for the spineless
As the Men’s Movement grows, both in size and in social awareness, there has been a similar growth in the calls for moderation, for a publicly palatable presentation of men’s issues. Nearly universally, these calls come from those who are new to the movement, or of a Socialist ideological bent. And there is good reason for this commonality, the same reason why following this approach is foolhardy.
Men are controlled in society primarily through the use of the stick, rather than the carrot. Anyone with a Y chromosome growing up in the political West is familiar with the concepts, if not particularly aware of them:
Get a good job, or you won’t get a quality woman. Break your back every day to ensure she can sit on her ass if she chooses to, and do so while also taking on half of the household responsibilities. Don’t even think about making less than last year. Man Up motherfucker!
Your sexual desires are dirty, disgusting, sexist and Patriarchal. You should be ashamed of yourself for being attracted to a woman based on her looks. That’s objectification! Your natural impulses are oppressive, evil, ‘sick’, or even violent, and they should be suppressed at all costs. You should never judge a woman for her sexuality or sexual history. Anything she chose to do was her right to do as a woman. If you ever engage in sexual activity that is not 100% enthusiastically consented to – in the Legal sense – then you are a dirty rapist scumbag. No, you do not get to know what ‘consent in the Legal sense’ actually means. Stop whining about ‘fairness’. No one ever said life was fair. Now get back to twisting yourself in knots trying to live up to these expectations, or you’ll never find True Happiness.
Of course we provide extra incentive and help to designated groups. They start from a position of dis-empowerment and need a little more to make up for it. No, we don’t apply this same principle in all cases, because some designated groups are more designated than others, if you know what I mean. Men, for example, and more specifically white men, make up almost all of the world’s richest elite (we only count the elites that have a job title, but don’t bother with that), so while there are some disadvantaged white males, as a group they still have privilege. So we can’t help them – it wouldn’t be fair. What’s that? You think actual need is more important than serving political ends? What are you, some kind of sexist bigot?
I’m sure you get the picture. One thing that seems to be a common thread among these social narratives is the acceptance of men, by women, for sexual relations. That, in essence, is the stick being used to beat men with. And it’s an obviously powerful one given that all the narratives outlined above, especially the Grand Kahuna narrative (female sex objects, male success objects), which is shamelessly hypocritical, yet widely supported.
This is cognitive dissonance on a massive scale, and in my view is akin to a deeply held and dogmatic religious belief shared by an overwhelming majority of a society, infecting nearly all of its power structures. So, how does one fight this sort of entity?
The key to winning this fight is a bit of guerrilla tactics, combined with a multi-pronged approach. And like any tactic designed around using the enemy’s strength against them, our best approach is to make criticism of our goals an open admission of hypocrisy on theirs. In short, as is the case with nearly the best method of attacking them is to use their own projections against them.
“Patriarchy Theory” is nothing more than women’s dependency and chosen lack of agency projected onto men. Ditto for women’s “oppression”
“Rape Culture” is nothing more than women’s narcissistic fantasy of sexual irresistibility projected onto men;
“The Wage Gap” is women’s collective frustration with their inability and/or unwillingness to compete in high paying professions, projected on to men;
“The Glass Ceiling” is an imaginary barrier erected by women as an excuse to fail;
“Hate Speech,” is the ultimate feminist projection, rooted in their denial and inability to logically counter criticism and dissent;
“Feminism” is infantilizing misogyny, an ideology that sees women as incompetent and weak, and assists them in targeting male scapegoats for their failures.
Obviously, the minds that swallow feminist bullshit are damaged in some way, are they not? Or perhaps you think they are merely misinformed, and once they learn the truth they will fight for what’s right?
There’s a problem in this kind of thinking. Actually, two. First, women tend to get their ‘facts’ from what is called ‘Social Proofing’. Basically, a popularity contest for ideas or actions. If a lot of other women like it, then it must be good.
The other problem is the male compulsion to please females. Rather, the distortion of the compulsion to attract females.
This leads to a startlingly simple to state strategy, sure to be far harder to implement than it may seem:
Make women feel ‘unpopular’, or ‘unattractive’, when engaging in undesired behaviors…but do it in a way that makes them want to fuck you. And anyone who knows anything about women will tell you, one naturally leads to the other. This is not “Game.” It is sexual politics on a personal level.
I don’t think I need to go into basic Sexual Marketplace ideas here, but it should be obvious that the Rebellious persona is a hell of a lot more compelling than the Conciliator persona. All feminist babble and bullshit aside, ‘damn the torpedoes’ attitude is far more attractive to women than a soft, respectful tone will ever be. And any woman will tell you, when a man asks for permission he loses her respect to some degree, when he ‘takes charge’, on the other hand….
Regardless, any examination of the history of the men’s movement should, by now, reveal two things to you. One, moderation is patently ineffective. Two, aggressive and uncompromising and corrective assertion of the truth, with total indifference to who it offends, works.
It works so well that they have started to foster their own undoing with violence in the street. We need to stay directly in their faces, and disabuse ourselves of the myth that a lot of women are not turned on by it. For a lot of them, it soaks their panties. You don’t have to even care about that to find it useful.
Source:click here
Here is the that peaceful,loving attitude from feminists that Factory was talking about:
It's good to see Factory back and discussing a subject I've brought up numerous times in the past. We are in agreement that a moderate voice accomplishes nothing and we've gone great guns using the militancy. Some have asked Why the militancy? and I believe I've answered that question. We're fighting the good fight and we have to keep it up if we're going to win.
As the Men’s Movement grows, both in size and in social awareness, there has been a similar growth in the calls for moderation, for a publicly palatable presentation of men’s issues. Nearly universally, these calls come from those who are new to the movement, or of a Socialist ideological bent. And there is good reason for this commonality, the same reason why following this approach is foolhardy.
Men are controlled in society primarily through the use of the stick, rather than the carrot. Anyone with a Y chromosome growing up in the political West is familiar with the concepts, if not particularly aware of them:
I’m sure you get the picture. One thing that seems to be a common thread among these social narratives is the acceptance of men, by women, for sexual relations. That, in essence, is the stick being used to beat men with. And it’s an obviously powerful one given that all the narratives outlined above, especially the Grand Kahuna narrative (female sex objects, male success objects), which is shamelessly hypocritical, yet widely supported.
This is cognitive dissonance on a massive scale, and in my view is akin to a deeply held and dogmatic religious belief shared by an overwhelming majority of a society, infecting nearly all of its power structures. So, how does one fight this sort of entity?
The key to winning this fight is a bit of guerrilla tactics, combined with a multi-pronged approach. And like any tactic designed around using the enemy’s strength against them, our best approach is to make criticism of our goals an open admission of hypocrisy on theirs. In short, as is the case with nearly the best method of attacking them is to use their own projections against them.
Obviously, the minds that swallow feminist bullshit are damaged in some way, are they not? Or perhaps you think they are merely misinformed, and once they learn the truth they will fight for what’s right?
There’s a problem in this kind of thinking. Actually, two. First, women tend to get their ‘facts’ from what is called ‘Social Proofing’. Basically, a popularity contest for ideas or actions. If a lot of other women like it, then it must be good.
The other problem is the male compulsion to please females. Rather, the distortion of the compulsion to attract females.
This leads to a startlingly simple to state strategy, sure to be far harder to implement than it may seem:
Make women feel ‘unpopular’, or ‘unattractive’, when engaging in undesired behaviors…but do it in a way that makes them want to fuck you. And anyone who knows anything about women will tell you, one naturally leads to the other. This is not “Game.” It is sexual politics on a personal level.
I don’t think I need to go into basic Sexual Marketplace ideas here, but it should be obvious that the Rebellious persona is a hell of a lot more compelling than the Conciliator persona. All feminist babble and bullshit aside, ‘damn the torpedoes’ attitude is far more attractive to women than a soft, respectful tone will ever be. And any woman will tell you, when a man asks for permission he loses her respect to some degree, when he ‘takes charge’, on the other hand….
Regardless, any examination of the history of the men’s movement should, by now, reveal two things to you. One, moderation is patently ineffective. Two, aggressive and uncompromising and corrective assertion of the truth, with total indifference to who it offends, works.
It works so well that they have started to foster their own undoing with violence in the street. We need to stay directly in their faces, and disabuse ourselves of the myth that a lot of women are not turned on by it. For a lot of them, it soaks their panties. You don’t have to even care about that to find it useful.
Source:click here
Here is the that peaceful,loving attitude from feminists that Factory was talking about:
It's good to see Factory back and discussing a subject I've brought up numerous times in the past. We are in agreement that a moderate voice accomplishes nothing and we've gone great guns using the militancy. Some have asked Why the militancy? and I believe I've answered that question. We're fighting the good fight and we have to keep it up if we're going to win.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
A thank you from SAVE
As we celebrate the season of giving thanks we turn to you our committed e-lert activists, hardworking volunteers, dedicated staff, and generous donors to say that we couldn't do this without you. Every one of our advances is due to your commitment to our success. Thank you!
Looking for a good movie to catch this holiday season? Next Monday is the premiere of The Central Park Five, the story of the five young men who were wrongfully convicted for the 1989 rape of a jogger in Central Park. Check your theater for showtimes. You can watch the trailer below.
Thanks again for everything, from the bottom of my heart.
teri
Visit here to join SAVE's Domestic Violence Legislative Project (the DVLP).
Please share this e-lert with a friend.
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Looking for a good movie to catch this holiday season? Next Monday is the premiere of The Central Park Five, the story of the five young men who were wrongfully convicted for the 1989 rape of a jogger in Central Park. Check your theater for showtimes. You can watch the trailer below.
Thanks again for everything, from the bottom of my heart.
teri
Visit here to join SAVE's Domestic Violence Legislative Project (the DVLP).
Please share this e-lert with a friend.
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Patraeus the white knight
Gen. John Allen also helped Jill Kelley's sister during custody battle
By GEOFF EARLE and DAN MANGAN
Last Updated: 2:17 AM, November 14, 2012
Posted: 10:46 AM, November 13, 2012
Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombshell claims of being threatened by Petraeus' lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned.
Allen, the four-star general top commander in Afghanistan, was revealed last night to have exchanged thousands of pages of of emails with Kelley, who went to the feds after receiving threatening e-mails from Paula Broadwell, the married mistress of Petraeus.
A judge noted in the file that Khawam "has attached letters from Gen. David H. Petraeus averring to her ability to appropriately parent the child, and is prepared to present corroborating testimony at trial."
And in court documents filed by Kelley's sister Natalie Khawam, she name-drops both Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- who both have ties to a Providence, RI, lawyer/Democratic fundraiser who loaned a whopping $300,000 to Khawam.
A spokesman for Whitehouse today that lawyer, Gerald Harrington, has dated and "may have been engaged to Khawam." Harrington has not returned a call seeking comment.
Khawam claimed in a July 12 letter to her estranged husband that she took their now 4-year-old son "on vacation last year to Martha Vineyard," where their son and "I had a great time at the DSCC [Democratic Senate Campaign Committee] event."
"Sen. John Kerry asked if [her son] would be coming again this year," Khawam wrote. "[Their son] was a superstar at the DSCC last year."
A spokeswoman for Kerry – who the Washington Post reports is being considered as President Obama's next secretary of defense -- in an email comment wrote, "Senator Kerry’s friend Jerry Harrington introduced him to his girlfriend (Natalie) at a DSCC event."
Also filed in that court case by Khawam is a letter from Whitehouse, who like Kerry is a Democrat.
That letter was written to Harrington, who has been a fundraiser for Kerry and other Democrats out of Rhode Island. Harrington, according to Khawam's federal bankruptcy filing earlier this year in Florida, gave her a personal loan of $300,000.
"Derry Gerry," Whitehouse wrote. "I am excited to hear that you and [Khawam's son] may be coming to the Family Clambake. That would be terrific! All the best wishes, Sheldon."
A related email from Khawam to her estranged husband -- from whom she was seeking permission to take their son to Whitehouse's annual fundraising clambake -- said that their son "knows Sen. Whitehouse and his family from spending time together with them last summer in Newport, R.I.
A spokesman for Whitehouse confirmed that the senator had written that invitation at the request of Harrington.
"Gerry Harrington is a pretty prominent political activist in Rhode Island," said Whitehouse's spokesman "I think Gerry has either been dating or may have been engaged to Natalie . . . Sheldon has met Natalie through Gerry."
Both Petraeus and Allen apparently decided intervene in the same nasty court fight involving Khawam's 4-year-old, siding with the mother who, according to court documents, took her son to Florida from Washington, DC, when he was four months old after a heated argument with her husband.
The generals' letters to the court — written in the past two months — supported a motion to overturn a ruling made nearly a year earlier by a judge who resoundingly denied custody to Khawam, because of serious reservations about her honesty and mental stability, court records show.
The father, Grayson Wolfe, was unable to see the child for more than a year, according to court documents. The judge overseeing the case cited Khawam with “outrageous conduct,” “bad faith litigation tactics,” and “illogical thinking,” awarding full custody to the father and socking the mom with $350,000 in legal fees in 2011.
The judge gave Wolfe sole custody of the couple’s son after finding that Khawam, a lawyer, repeatedly lied under oath and filed bogus domestic-violence and child-abuse claims against her husband after their one-year marriage began crumbling in 2009.
That judge also found that Khawam routinely defied court orders to let the child see his dad and sent harassing e-mails to Wolfe’s friends and business partners that “excoriated Mr. Wolfe for being a horrible father and husband.”
The judge blasted Khawam for giving false evidence, and noted that a court-ordered shrink had found her domestic-violence allegations to be “part of an ever-expanding set of sensational accusations . . . that are so numerous, so extraordinary and [so] distorted that they defy any common-sense view of reality.”
The judge also noted that she “is a psychologically unstable person.”
“My wife and I have known Natalie for approximately three years, getting to know her while serving in Tampa, Florida, through our friendship with Dr. and Mrs. Scott Kelley,”Petraeus wrote in a letterintroduced as part of a legal motion by Natalie Khawam’s lawyer.
“It is clear to me that [child’s name] would benefit from much more time with his Mother and from removal of the burdensome restrictions imposed on her when she does get to spend time with him,” Petraeus wrote.
Petraeus said he had observed Natalie and her son, “including when we hosted them and the Kelley family for Christmas dinner this past year. In each case, we have seen a very loving relationship – a Mother working hard to provide her son enjoyable, educational and developmental experiences,” he wrote.
“In view of this, it is unfortunate, in my view, that her interaction with her son has been so limited by the custody settlement,” Petraeus continued.
A separate letter from Allen is dated Sept. 22, two days after the Petraeus letter. “Natalie clearly loves [child’s name] and cherishes each and every opportunity she has to spend time with him. She is a dedicated mother,” Allen wrote. “In light of Natalie’s maturity, integrity and steadfast commitment to raising her child, I humbly request your reconsideration of the existing mandated custody settlement,” Allen wrote. He said he got to observe the mother and child “at command social functions.”
He signed his letter: “Gen. John R. Allen, General, United States Marine Corps,” on what appears to be official letterhead.
Allen’s letter does not mention any romantic relationship between himself and Kelley.
Petraeus, who just stepped down as CIA chief, signed his letter: “General, U.S. Army (Retired).
Politico reported that Gen. Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan and a former top deputy to Petraeus at Central Command in Tampa, exchanged “potentially inappropriate” emails with Kelley, citing a senior defense official.
Source:click here
Generals Petraeus and Allen assisted in fucking over an innocent man in his divorce proceedings and now these whiteknights are hoisted on their own petards. How ironic is that? The women they serve are the same women who threw them to the wolves. Like I said how ironic.
By GEOFF EARLE and DAN MANGAN
Last Updated: 2:17 AM, November 14, 2012
Posted: 10:46 AM, November 13, 2012
Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombshell claims of being threatened by Petraeus' lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned.
Allen, the four-star general top commander in Afghanistan, was revealed last night to have exchanged thousands of pages of of emails with Kelley, who went to the feds after receiving threatening e-mails from Paula Broadwell, the married mistress of Petraeus.
A judge noted in the file that Khawam "has attached letters from Gen. David H. Petraeus averring to her ability to appropriately parent the child, and is prepared to present corroborating testimony at trial."
And in court documents filed by Kelley's sister Natalie Khawam, she name-drops both Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- who both have ties to a Providence, RI, lawyer/Democratic fundraiser who loaned a whopping $300,000 to Khawam.
A spokesman for Whitehouse today that lawyer, Gerald Harrington, has dated and "may have been engaged to Khawam." Harrington has not returned a call seeking comment.
Khawam claimed in a July 12 letter to her estranged husband that she took their now 4-year-old son "on vacation last year to Martha Vineyard," where their son and "I had a great time at the DSCC [Democratic Senate Campaign Committee] event."
"Sen. John Kerry asked if [her son] would be coming again this year," Khawam wrote. "[Their son] was a superstar at the DSCC last year."
A spokeswoman for Kerry – who the Washington Post reports is being considered as President Obama's next secretary of defense -- in an email comment wrote, "Senator Kerry’s friend Jerry Harrington introduced him to his girlfriend (Natalie) at a DSCC event."
Also filed in that court case by Khawam is a letter from Whitehouse, who like Kerry is a Democrat.
That letter was written to Harrington, who has been a fundraiser for Kerry and other Democrats out of Rhode Island. Harrington, according to Khawam's federal bankruptcy filing earlier this year in Florida, gave her a personal loan of $300,000.
"Derry Gerry," Whitehouse wrote. "I am excited to hear that you and [Khawam's son] may be coming to the Family Clambake. That would be terrific! All the best wishes, Sheldon."
A related email from Khawam to her estranged husband -- from whom she was seeking permission to take their son to Whitehouse's annual fundraising clambake -- said that their son "knows Sen. Whitehouse and his family from spending time together with them last summer in Newport, R.I.
A spokesman for Whitehouse confirmed that the senator had written that invitation at the request of Harrington.
"Gerry Harrington is a pretty prominent political activist in Rhode Island," said Whitehouse's spokesman "I think Gerry has either been dating or may have been engaged to Natalie . . . Sheldon has met Natalie through Gerry."
Both Petraeus and Allen apparently decided intervene in the same nasty court fight involving Khawam's 4-year-old, siding with the mother who, according to court documents, took her son to Florida from Washington, DC, when he was four months old after a heated argument with her husband.
The generals' letters to the court — written in the past two months — supported a motion to overturn a ruling made nearly a year earlier by a judge who resoundingly denied custody to Khawam, because of serious reservations about her honesty and mental stability, court records show.
The father, Grayson Wolfe, was unable to see the child for more than a year, according to court documents. The judge overseeing the case cited Khawam with “outrageous conduct,” “bad faith litigation tactics,” and “illogical thinking,” awarding full custody to the father and socking the mom with $350,000 in legal fees in 2011.
The judge gave Wolfe sole custody of the couple’s son after finding that Khawam, a lawyer, repeatedly lied under oath and filed bogus domestic-violence and child-abuse claims against her husband after their one-year marriage began crumbling in 2009.
That judge also found that Khawam routinely defied court orders to let the child see his dad and sent harassing e-mails to Wolfe’s friends and business partners that “excoriated Mr. Wolfe for being a horrible father and husband.”
The judge blasted Khawam for giving false evidence, and noted that a court-ordered shrink had found her domestic-violence allegations to be “part of an ever-expanding set of sensational accusations . . . that are so numerous, so extraordinary and [so] distorted that they defy any common-sense view of reality.”
The judge also noted that she “is a psychologically unstable person.”
“My wife and I have known Natalie for approximately three years, getting to know her while serving in Tampa, Florida, through our friendship with Dr. and Mrs. Scott Kelley,”Petraeus wrote in a letterintroduced as part of a legal motion by Natalie Khawam’s lawyer.
“It is clear to me that [child’s name] would benefit from much more time with his Mother and from removal of the burdensome restrictions imposed on her when she does get to spend time with him,” Petraeus wrote.
Petraeus said he had observed Natalie and her son, “including when we hosted them and the Kelley family for Christmas dinner this past year. In each case, we have seen a very loving relationship – a Mother working hard to provide her son enjoyable, educational and developmental experiences,” he wrote.
“In view of this, it is unfortunate, in my view, that her interaction with her son has been so limited by the custody settlement,” Petraeus continued.
A separate letter from Allen is dated Sept. 22, two days after the Petraeus letter. “Natalie clearly loves [child’s name] and cherishes each and every opportunity she has to spend time with him. She is a dedicated mother,” Allen wrote. “In light of Natalie’s maturity, integrity and steadfast commitment to raising her child, I humbly request your reconsideration of the existing mandated custody settlement,” Allen wrote. He said he got to observe the mother and child “at command social functions.”
He signed his letter: “Gen. John R. Allen, General, United States Marine Corps,” on what appears to be official letterhead.
Allen’s letter does not mention any romantic relationship between himself and Kelley.
Petraeus, who just stepped down as CIA chief, signed his letter: “General, U.S. Army (Retired).
Politico reported that Gen. Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan and a former top deputy to Petraeus at Central Command in Tampa, exchanged “potentially inappropriate” emails with Kelley, citing a senior defense official.
Source:click here
Generals Petraeus and Allen assisted in fucking over an innocent man in his divorce proceedings and now these whiteknights are hoisted on their own petards. How ironic is that? The women they serve are the same women who threw them to the wolves. Like I said how ironic.
Heads up
I'm going to start posting the non-gender political stuff at Among other things to leave this blog more free to pursue men's issues as it was originally intended to do. Among other things will also be updated on a regular basis and you'll find stuff there that may not be anywhere else so stay informed by checking in on a regular basis. I'll be discussing other stuff as well so check it out.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Protest the Cybersecurity Act
From Campaign For Liberty:
Wednesday night, the Senate defeated the latest attempt to ram through Senator Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012."
Thanks to your quick action, we won an important victory despite finding out about Reid's plans fewer than 24 hours before the vote.
After being defeated on this issue yet again, even Harry Reid was forced to admit, "Cybersecurity is dead for this Congress."
Enter Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell...
... who on Thursday actually said he hopes the bill will come up again in December!
Why in the world would he make such a statement?
Well, apparently McConnell voted the right way Wednesday simply because Reid limited the amendments that could be offered to the bill.
So how many others didn't shove this bill down our throats just because Harry Reid didn't allow an open amendment process?
The simple truth is, there are far too many members of the Senate eager to secure more government control over the Internet.
We can't assume anything - or let down our guard for a moment.
That's why I'm asking you to contact Mitch McConnell by phone at 202-224-2541 and by email today with a simple message - "No Deals!"
Growing government power is about the only bipartisan action we can expect from Congress nowadays.
Have "leaders" in Washington really learned NOTHING from the election?
Millions of Americans were sick of the status quo and simply stayed home.
Grassroots activists want leaders who will STAND UP for their right to privacy and for their freedoms online - not just because the process the bill comes up under is flawed, but because fighting for freedom is the right thing to do!
As Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (whose number once again is 202-224-2541) needs to lead on principle.
If the Republican Party ever hopes to find its way out of the latest wilderness it has wandered into, then it must stop being the "Big Government-lite" party.
And if the Internet is to remain a vibrant resource for technological innovation and the open exchange of information, Big Brother must keep its grabby mitts OFF.
C4L's message is getting through, as support for the so-called "cybersecurity" bill actually decreased by one senator since they last acted on it in August.
We will continue to apply pressure with the mailgrams we've received from thousands of activists like you, but we need your help today to double-down!
Please take a moment to contact Mitch McConnell by phone at 202-224-2541 and by email right away.
Tell him to oppose ANY efforts to pass Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012" or any other legislation during the lame-duck session to give government more power over the Internet.
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
P.S. Wednesday night, Harry Reid's latest attempt to ram through Senator Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012" failed - thanks to your quick action.
But now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted against it, says he hopes the bill comes up again in December - just with an open amendment process!
So please contact Mitch McConnell by phone at 202-224-2541 and by email today with a simple message - "No Deals!"
Tell him to oppose ANY efforts to pass Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012" or any other legislation during the lame-duck session to give government more power over the Internet.
To email Senator McConnell click here
More restrictions on the internet is something none of us wants and if you are like-minded then by all means contact Senator Mitch McConnell and tell him to leave the net alone.
Wednesday night, the Senate defeated the latest attempt to ram through Senator Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012."
Thanks to your quick action, we won an important victory despite finding out about Reid's plans fewer than 24 hours before the vote.
After being defeated on this issue yet again, even Harry Reid was forced to admit, "Cybersecurity is dead for this Congress."
Enter Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell...
... who on Thursday actually said he hopes the bill will come up again in December!
Why in the world would he make such a statement?
Well, apparently McConnell voted the right way Wednesday simply because Reid limited the amendments that could be offered to the bill.
So how many others didn't shove this bill down our throats just because Harry Reid didn't allow an open amendment process?
The simple truth is, there are far too many members of the Senate eager to secure more government control over the Internet.
We can't assume anything - or let down our guard for a moment.
That's why I'm asking you to contact Mitch McConnell by phone at 202-224-2541 and by email today with a simple message - "No Deals!"
Growing government power is about the only bipartisan action we can expect from Congress nowadays.
Have "leaders" in Washington really learned NOTHING from the election?
Millions of Americans were sick of the status quo and simply stayed home.
Grassroots activists want leaders who will STAND UP for their right to privacy and for their freedoms online - not just because the process the bill comes up under is flawed, but because fighting for freedom is the right thing to do!
As Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (whose number once again is 202-224-2541) needs to lead on principle.
If the Republican Party ever hopes to find its way out of the latest wilderness it has wandered into, then it must stop being the "Big Government-lite" party.
And if the Internet is to remain a vibrant resource for technological innovation and the open exchange of information, Big Brother must keep its grabby mitts OFF.
C4L's message is getting through, as support for the so-called "cybersecurity" bill actually decreased by one senator since they last acted on it in August.
We will continue to apply pressure with the mailgrams we've received from thousands of activists like you, but we need your help today to double-down!
Please take a moment to contact Mitch McConnell by phone at 202-224-2541 and by email right away.
Tell him to oppose ANY efforts to pass Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012" or any other legislation during the lame-duck session to give government more power over the Internet.
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
P.S. Wednesday night, Harry Reid's latest attempt to ram through Senator Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012" failed - thanks to your quick action.
But now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted against it, says he hopes the bill comes up again in December - just with an open amendment process!
So please contact Mitch McConnell by phone at 202-224-2541 and by email today with a simple message - "No Deals!"
Tell him to oppose ANY efforts to pass Lieberman's "Cybersecurity Act of 2012" or any other legislation during the lame-duck session to give government more power over the Internet.
To email Senator McConnell click here
More restrictions on the internet is something none of us wants and if you are like-minded then by all means contact Senator Mitch McConnell and tell him to leave the net alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)